Machiavelli's The Prince Analysis

The political situation that prompted Machiavelli to write The Prince was that Italy wasn’t a unified country yet. It was a bunch of city states.

Machiavelli’s interpretation of human nature was greatly shaped by his belief in God. In his writings, Machiavelli conceives that humans were given free will by God, and the choices made with such freedom established the innate flaws in humans. Based on that, he attributes the successes and failure of princes to their intrinsic weaknesses, and directs his writing towards those faults. His works are rooted in how personal attributes tend to affect the decisions one makes and focuses on the singular commanding force of power. Fixating on how the prince needs to draw people’s support, Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of doing what is best for the greater good. He proposed that working toward a selfish goal, instead of striving towards a better state, should warrant punishment. Machiavelli is a practical person and always thought of pragmatic ways to approach situations, applying to his notions regarding politics and

Gaining power through virtue is the process of gaining power through one’s own ability, while gaining power through fortune is the process of gaining power through means not related to one’s own ability such as wealth or another’s grace. In Chapter 6 of The Prince, Machiavelli discusses principalities gained through virtue and their characteristics.

Niccolò Machiavelli was an activist of analyzing power. He believed firmly in his theories and he wanted to persuade everyone else of them as well. To comment on the common relationship that was seen between moral goodness and legitimate authority of those who held power, Machiavelli said that authority and power were essentially coequal.9 He believed that whomever had power obtained the right to command; but goodness does not ensure power. This implied that the only genuine apprehension of the administrative power was the attainment and preservation of powers which indirectly guided the maintenance of the state. That, to him, should have been the objective of all leaders. Machiavelli believed that one should do whatever it took, during the given circumstance, to keep his people in favor of him and to maintain the state. Thus, all leaders should have both a sly fox and ravenous wolf inside of him prepared to release when necessary.10

People are unlikely to overthrow a ruler that they fear, for they dread the punishments of failure. If the ruler is not feared by the people, he will eventually upset enough of them that they will rise up against him. They will overthrow him because of his perceived weakness, and his name and image will be shamed in the eyes of both his government and his people. Machiavelli believes that the state is completely separate from the ruler’s private life. No matter how immoral or heartless the ruler may be in private, only his public image is important. A ruler can be a terrible, sleazy person on their own time, and when not involved with matters of the state, but at any time when the leader is involved in politics and the state, you cannot afford to injure the image of the ruler or else anarchy will develop. With this kind of rebellion can come revolution, war, and many other tragedies that could be otherwise avoided.

Machiavelli has another argument “concerning those who become princes by evil means.”# He believes that cruelty can also be used to benefit the prince but only in modesty. If a prince frequently relies on cruel acts then he will not live in power for long. Proper use of cruelty is only achieved when it is done “out of the need for safety” and when it is done swiftly as to make sure that the act is quickly forgotten, and the people can return to a feeling of safety.# His idea that cruelty should be swift is excellent, this way the citizens will feel more at ease with there prince, because if he were to drag out the atrocities then the people may feel the need to revolt to protect their personal freedoms and civil rights. Many people may think these are evil ideas, but it is completely practical, during Machiavelli’s era (and even today) a prince will always face a moment in this rule that he will have to act in a cruel manner, in no way is this statement cruel it is just a practical way of dealing with a inevitable situation. He also believes that “benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavour of them may last longer.”# As much as people may be discusted by this

While Machiavelli emphasizes power over in relations between the political elite, he discusses a different kind of power in the relations between a prince and the general public. Machiavelli notes that a prince can share power with the people, since a prince can trust the people much more than he can trust the nobles. Nobles "can not be satisfied if a ruler acts honorably but the people can be thus satisfies, because their aims are more honorable than those of the nobles are: for the latter only want to oppress and the former only want to avoid being oppressed" (p.35). The people are not unforgiving and greedy so the prince can place more trust in the people. Since the public can be trusted, the prince can empower the people. An empowered public will protect the ruler rather than overthrow him. Machiavelli suggests providing people with power in terms of arms, since "when you arm them, these weapons become your own" (p. 72). In this way power is an increasing resource, sharing power with the people can result in greater power for the people and for the prince.

Prowess refers to an individual’s talents, while fortune implies chance or luck. A prince who manages to gain power by relying on his own prowess will succeed at maintaining power because his prowess will have built him a firm foundation for ruling. Princes who succeed due to the sway of fortune or the goodwill of others lack a basis from which to rule and will have difficulty building it quickly enough to prevent power from slipping out of their hands. Thus, although princes who rely on fortune reach their position easily, maintaining that position is extremely difficult. Therefore it is commendable that a prince succeeds on their own prowess, which will help build stronger fundamentals for themselves. He will have the loyalty of his army, which is analogous to the allegiance of the boss’ employees and the respect of leaders of surrounding principalities, which is also comparable to the esteem of other companies. Overall, the more self-reliant this authority figure is, the more he will prove capable of success as he will be better equipped to deal with problems and

A family of monarchy which tortured Machiavelli for months causing him great suffrage and sorrow. He writes to Lorenzo “May I trust, therefore, that Your Highness will accept this little gift in the spirit in which it is offered: and if Your Highness will deign to peruse it, you will recognize in it my ardent desire that you may attain to that grandeur which fortune and your own merits presage for you.” This enough is confusing because if this is the same principality that caused so much suffering why dedicate a book to let their reign continue into longevity? As to add to this confusion, Machiavelli explains how a prince should use cruelty and violence correctly against the people. To use cruelty and punishment all at once so that the people learn to respect you by fear. He includes that if you had a choice on either being loved or feared, be feared for love can change as quick as it came. Fear of punishment, people would avoid and be subservient. He also goes on to put out that a prince must be cunning like a fox yet strong and fearsome like a lion. To use Realpolitik, morality and ideology left out for the world is not these things as you should not be as well. Furthermore, Machiavelli explains what must happen when a new ruler overtakes a new city and the people in it. “And whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it,

Niccolo Machiavelli based his position of individual power on his book The Prince. The Prince extends Machiavelli’s analysis of how to acquire and maintain political power. There are four types of principalities discussed: hereditary principalities, that are inherited by the ruler through fortune and family royalty, mixed principalities, territories that are annexed to the ruler’s existing territories, new principalities, namely the Papal States belonging to the Catholic church, and new principalities, those states that may be acquired by one’s own power, by the power of others or by the will of the people. There is simplicity for a prince that inherits a state through fortune or the efforts of others due to easy ascent to power, but maintaining the power is more difficult. For a prince that conquers a state through force and power has difficulty conquering the state but has an easy time maintaining the state.

Relying on the needs of the society of that time, Machiavelli comes to the conclusion that the most important task is the formation of a single Italian state (Machiavelli 15). Developing his thoughts, the author comes to the following inference: only a prince can become a leader capable of leading people and building a unified state. It is not a concrete historical personality but someone abstract, symbolic, possessing such qualities that in the aggregate are inaccessible to any living ruler. That is why Machiavelli devotes most of his research to the issue of what qualities should the prince possess to fulfill the historical task of developing a new state. The written work is constructed strictly logically and objectively. Even though the image of an ideal prince is abstract, Machiavelli argues that he should be ruthless, deceiving, and selfish.

The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli presents a detailed analysis of how to acquire political power and maintain it. The author discusses how great men should conduct themselves and the desired principles of a princely government. Utopia by Sir Thomas More illustrates what the character Raphael Hythloday, its narrator, suggests to be the perfect human society found in the island of Utopia. This essay looks at why Machiavelli thinks a prince needs to have virtù in order to rule well, and whether Fortuna can actually foster the prince’s virtù. It will also look at the extent to which Utopia provides an argument that a leader has to have virtù in order to govern well. The essay will explore if there is any proof in Utopia that Fortuna plays a role in fostering virtù.

One of the most prevalent themes found in Machiavelli’s The Prince is the theme of fortune. Machiavelli, though in disguise, focuses on the theme of fortune in chapter four and explains how it plays a heavy role in acquiring power. Chapter four begins in introducing states ruled by a prince with barons and states ruled by a prince with appointed ministers, and continues by distinguishing the similarities and differences between the two groups. For states ruled by a prince with hereditary barons, Machiavelli claims that power is easier to acquire as the prince receives help in conquering the

When reading Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, one can’t help but grasp Machiavelli’s argument that morality and politics can not exist in the same forum. However, when examining Machiavelli’s various concepts in depth, one can conclude that perhaps his suggested violence and evil is fueled by a moral end of sorts. First and foremost, one must have the understanding that this book is aimed solely at the Prince or Emperor with the express purpose of aiding him in maintaining power. Therefore, it is essential to grasp his concepts of fortune and virtue. These two contrary concepts reflect the manner in which a Prince should govern while minimizing all chance and uncertainty. This kind of governing demands violence to be taken, however this

Although he may be considered cold hearted and unjust, I believe that in many roles of political leadership, a person will have to be cold in many areas of ruling. Machiavelli is a leader who understands the human mind. With this knowledge he has, he influences the people. If the people are loyal to their leader they will prosper and benefit mutually. If the city so does the leader and he gains more power. So to me it seems like a cycle of you get what you want, and I get what I want. Machiavelli understood the place of a prince and the place of his subjects and citizens. He knows what leadership consist of and how to obtain true power. He also knows that most common people do not, and they should be ruled over for their own good. Maybe I'm being too easy and optimistic about Machiavelli, but I do believe he gives sound advice based on his knowledge of how people work and think. Pain and evil are real and necessary to in order to rule affectively. Machiavelli states that laying down a solid foundation is important in building a successful future for the city/state. By doing evil and causing pain, it might be hurtful at the time, but in the long run, a good prince will be setting up a solid foundation for future